“Can we really make the Jesus of the Gospels come up with an answer to the world’s biggest problems”

Absolutely! Not by changing the gospels, but by hearing them in their original context. We have to unmake (deconstruct) the story. It was morphed by institutional Christianity into something other than a story about the world’s biggest problems. Answering the worlds biggest problems is exactly what the gospel does. The gospel is the notion that real peace comes through justice, real power comes through service, real wealth comes through sharing, real life comes through death, and real glory comes through humility. When we implement those ideals on a global level we get a global kingdom of God. For too long, Christianity has bound those ideals to an individual level.

“In the future foreseen by the New Testament story neither Judaism nor Rome is to be saved from self-destruction. So why should we so confidently conclude that God now is in partnership with humanity to save the whole world from whatever global social and environmental catastrophe we are heading towards?
The coming of the kingdom of God in the New Testament is specifically the coming of YHWH to set his people free from the concrete, historical consequences of their sin and to install his own regent over them in place of a spectrum of oppressive political and spiritual forces”

Andrew, you seem to be stuck in the story (metaphor). The story crafted in the New Testament of YHWH coming to set his people free from sin is symbolism for exactly what Brian describes in this book. The question is how we will live out the narrative of YHWH coming to set us free from our sin. It is nice that you like to talk about the story. We need that. But, what we have often missed and what we find in Brian’s books is a realistic picture of how that can work. When we follow Brian’s advice and create an allegiance to social and political methods of change, then we are living out the story told in the biblical myths.

YHWH is coming again every day. When a nation decided that every child would receive education without regards to race or economic situation, then YHWH reversed the past sins of racism and greed. When the response to a war was decades of sacrifice, forgiveness, and rebuilding of the defeated, then YHWH reversed the sins of violence. We have opportunities every day to bring YHWH to the rescue by installing its ideals in our society. Christ is not a man that will one day literally rule the world. Christ is a spirit that rules every time humans employ his ideals. We are his body as he is resurrected in us. When that happens the kingdom comes and we get a taste of it. It is here and it is coming. It is a reality and a possibility.

“But Jesus does not, in fact, challenge empire - his anger is directed against Jewish iniquity; he is barely interested in Rome”.

Andrew, that is simply not honest and you’ve overlooked why Jesus opposed the Jewish iniquity. He was not upset at Jews rather than Rome, he was upset at their cooperation with the Empire. Jewish leaders had joined the Empire and neglected its task. Jesus stood in opposition to the values of Empire. He protested the temple, not because the temple is a bad idea, but because the temple had become an Empire and a tool of the larger Empire. He echoed the prophetic voices that came before him as they protested the imperial leanings of the temple. His enemy is imperialism in all its forms. I think you are picking up the residual effects of his protest and mistaking it for apathy about Rome.

On atonement, I disagree with McLaren and with you, Andrew. Neither of you go far enough in your deconstruction. You both imply that Jesus chose death (you more than Brian). I disagree. He chose a vocation that he knew would likely mean death, but he did not choose death and his death didn’t in itself accomplish some supernatural result. It did work as a model for non-violent protest and a critique of how empire does business, but it wasn’t a spiritual choice by either Jesus or YWHW.

Your critique of Brian’s Eschatology is also off-base. Brian correctly sees the bible’s eschatology as a grand metaphor for how the world could possibly be transformed if we accept the challenge. He then lays out practical ways to make that a reality. I think you are leaning to much toward a “left behind” type of eschatology that imagines many of the metaphors in Revelation to be interpreted literally. You seem to buy into the left behind approach that God will supernaturally intervene and remake the world. The bible’s prophetic books are metaphors of hopes and possibilitis not supernatural prognostications. You’ve criticized Brian for painting a picture and giving concrete directions for how to make that eschatological possibility a reality. I applaud him for painting this picture and writing in a way that will appeal to a broad audience.